6 ms·

Can you please provide some evidence for your claim? My quick research showed that about 29% of GHG emissions is from transport and a significant part of that i

by tonmoy 7y ago

Can you please provide some evidence for your claim? My quick research showed that about 29% of GHG emissions is from transport and a significant part of that is from cars and trucks

kortilla 7y ago
In the US it’s 29% of GHG, 59% of which is light vehicles (i.e. the candidates for feasible electric replacement). https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-... While helpful, a 100% replacement is only a reduction of ~20% GHG, and that depends on 100% renewable charging the cars.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Well yeah? A 20% reduction is absolutely massive! I don't think anybody expected replacing ICEs to solve the climate catastrophe single handedly.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    Most electricity in the US isn't carbon-free, and isn't likely to become so in the near future. From a climate perspective, living close to work, and carpooling, bicycling, or riding a motorcycle are all much more effective than buying an electric car. Heck, even in a city like New York with a good (electric) mass transit system, the main climate savings is that people are close together and go shorter distances. (The carbon emissions per passenger-mile are not very impressive.)
    - tonmoy 7y ago
      The efficiency of Internal combustion engine is about 25%, whereas a combined cycle power plant can be around 60% efficient. Even with transmission, storage and electric motor inefficiencies, EVs come ahead. Add the fact that more and more percentage of power is come from renewables each day, I’d say EVs are more than feel good BS. Sure, staying closer to work may be a better idea, but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        You forgot to account for manufacturing and transport of a new car and disposal of the old that wouldn’t have happened if replacement wasn’t forced early. Also, efficiency isn’t the number to compare. It’s CO2 emissions.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      We don't have time to wait for one climate policy to come into full effect before starting work on the next. We need to replace ICE cars with BEV while simultaneously replacing fossil fuels for electricity generation.
- ben_w 7y ago
  Given we need reductions of 90%-110%, electrifying cars (or synthesising instead of drilling for the fuel) is a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution.
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  If that's what you consider ineffective, then what do you consider effective? There is no single source of GHGs higher than 29%, so if that's ineffective, then every intervention is ineffective.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Where did I say it was ineffective? Hmmmmmmm? Vehicles are not a single source, they are millions upon millions of single sources and replacing the entire fleet will take decades even with subsidies. Also, you need to read my comment more closely. The most important part for any of this EV stuff to matter is getting all electricity generation switched to carbon free. The current left-wing thinking in the US is “no nuclear” so EVs will be powered by GHG sources until that changes (or there is some unforeseen breakthrough in battery technology there is not yet evidence or theory of). EVs are necessary but not sufficient. Without the generation change they are now just natural gas/coal fired vehicles.

by tonmoy 7y ago

Can you please provide some evidence for your claim? My quick research showed that about 29% of GHG emissions is from transport and a significant part of that is from cars and trucks

kortilla 7y ago

In the US it’s 29% of GHG, 59% of which is light vehicles (i.e. the candidates for feasible electric replacement). https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-... While helpful, a 100% replacement is only a reduction of ~20% GHG, and that depends on 100% renewable charging the cars.

adrianN 7y ago
Well yeah? A 20% reduction is absolutely massive! I don't think anybody expected replacing ICEs to solve the climate catastrophe single handedly.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  Most electricity in the US isn't carbon-free, and isn't likely to become so in the near future. From a climate perspective, living close to work, and carpooling, bicycling, or riding a motorcycle are all much more effective than buying an electric car. Heck, even in a city like New York with a good (electric) mass transit system, the main climate savings is that people are close together and go shorter distances. (The carbon emissions per passenger-mile are not very impressive.)
  - tonmoy 7y ago
    The efficiency of Internal combustion engine is about 25%, whereas a combined cycle power plant can be around 60% efficient. Even with transmission, storage and electric motor inefficiencies, EVs come ahead. Add the fact that more and more percentage of power is come from renewables each day, I’d say EVs are more than feel good BS. Sure, staying closer to work may be a better idea, but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      You forgot to account for manufacturing and transport of a new car and disposal of the old that wouldn’t have happened if replacement wasn’t forced early. Also, efficiency isn’t the number to compare. It’s CO2 emissions.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    We don't have time to wait for one climate policy to come into full effect before starting work on the next. We need to replace ICE cars with BEV while simultaneously replacing fossil fuels for electricity generation.
ben_w 7y ago
Given we need reductions of 90%-110%, electrifying cars (or synthesising instead of drilling for the fuel) is a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution.
TheCoelacanth 7y ago
If that's what you consider ineffective, then what do you consider effective? There is no single source of GHGs higher than 29%, so if that's ineffective, then every intervention is ineffective.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Where did I say it was ineffective? Hmmmmmmm? Vehicles are not a single source, they are millions upon millions of single sources and replacing the entire fleet will take decades even with subsidies. Also, you need to read my comment more closely. The most important part for any of this EV stuff to matter is getting all electricity generation switched to carbon free. The current left-wing thinking in the US is “no nuclear” so EVs will be powered by GHG sources until that changes (or there is some unforeseen breakthrough in battery technology there is not yet evidence or theory of). EVs are necessary but not sufficient. Without the generation change they are now just natural gas/coal fired vehicles.